Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 11-01-2004 . . , MINUT.~S REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1st, 2004 (SPECIAL DATE DlJE TO GENERAL ELECTION) 6:00 P.M Commissioners Present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and William Spartz Richard Carlson, Lloyd Hilgart Glen Posusta Commissioners Absent Council Liaison: Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann I. Call to order. Chairman !,'rie called the meeting to order, declaring a quorum, noting the absence of Commissioners Hilgart and Carlson. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meetil)wld T~lesday, Oc;tober_6th, 2004. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRGASTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6th, 2004. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. 3. ~~onsideration of adding items to the agenda. None. 4. Citizen comments. None. 5. Public Ilearing .:- Consideration of a request for Variance to the 30~foot rear yard setback for an attached 4-unit townhome complex in an R-2 district. Applicant: Homestead Multi-FamilY Development Corporation Grittman provided the stafT report, reviewing the applicant's request for a variance. Grittlnan provided background on the planning and approval process for the development and noted that during the construction process, it had been discovered by a neighbor that the units are being built 25 feet from the property line, rather than the required 30 feet. At that point, the applicant was issued a stop work order. Staff requested that the applicant to file a variance request in order to bring the matter to the Commission. Grittman referred to the ordinance which cites a series of items qualifying as hardships to justify the variance. Grittman explained that it had been noted to the applicant during staff review of that he would be required to lneet the setback as Lot 7 was pal1icularly shallow. At that time, the Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/04 applicant had indicated he would be able to meet the setbacks. Grittman summarized that planning staff did not find a hardship to justify a variance and is not recommending the variance. He offered an alternative, stating that the Commission and applicant could consider modification to the rear portion of the existing building and intensify landscaping in that area. Dragsten inquired if the original plans showed a 25' setback. Grittman indicated that the original plans showed the 25' foot setback, which was the reason for staff's recommendation on meeting setbacks. Posusta clarified that a variance had not been granted based on the original plans. Posusta asked how staff missed the setback violation during review of building plans. Grittman explained that as the building itself is built inside a townhouse lot, the unit is separate from the setback boundaries. O'Neill indicated that due to the fact that staff had specifically addressed the setback issue, it was presumed that setbacks were being met. Additionally, the building plans did not show the specific setback dimension for the building. Frie asked when the error was detected. Grittman indicated it was brought to the attention of staff early in October by the neighbors. Frie asked if there is procedure that should have been followed so that accountability can be determined. Patch indicated that accountability lies with the developer who violated the law. In this case, the townhouse lot or building pad is considered entirely buildable, and most often the lot lines are entirely within the setbacks for townhome building pads. In this case, the lot lines extend into the setback areas. It was assumed that the townhome would be placed within the building setbacks and within the lot lines. Patch also pointed out that in most cases, the land surveyor will indicate setbacks on the survey. That did not happen in this case. Posusta asked if staff had approved a drawing with no dimensions. Patch clarified that there are various dimensions on the plan sets, but no setback lines. Patch explained that the underlying setbacks always apply for the district. Patch indicated that an as -built foundation survey is required just after foundation is rough - graded. That would have helped the building department determine exactly where the foundation was in terms of setbacks. There are occasions where the as -built survey isn't turned in until framing inspection. In this case, the survey wasn't turned in until the after the framing inspection. Patch explained that in any case, the structure is still too large for the lot. In fact, the developer also included a patio door on the upper level. The previous Planning Commission reports specifically state that setbacks would not allow for a deck to be built. Patch stated that it seemed clear that the developer didn't understand what was recommended by staff. Frie asked if there was something for the staff to be learned, so that this doesn't happen again. For example, staff could complete a check at time of foundation. Patch indicated that at times, it can be difficult due to construction. Frie asked if a survey is incorrect, is that justification for a hardship. Grittman stated that according to the ordinance, it would not be a justification, as it is not physical in nature. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Schneider, Homestead Multi - Family Development Corp., builder and developer, addressed the Commission. Schneider stated that he was not aware of the setback violation until the neighbor measured and then the building inspector red - tagged it. Schneider stated that he had -2- Planning Commission Minutes 11/1 /04 . used the exact same plans as what was presented in the very bcginning. lie commcnted that at the time the first plans were presented, the lots were too shallow to be considered buildable. For that reason, Nicholas Circle was moved. He stated that he recalled only that he was to stay within the lot lines and that he had no intention of violating setbacks. Frie asked about whether the plans he was using for development were the same as what was presented to the Commission for approval. Schneider stated they were the same. Schneider stated that the town home style is the same as those that were built first on Prairie Road. Matt and Yvonne Theisen, 156 Hedman Lane, spoke to the Commission, stating that they had concerns when the development was first proposed. They noted that they had reviewed the concept plans, which showed Block 7 to be an unbuildable lot. When construction began, it appeared that the buildings were too close. Upon measuring, Theisen dctermined that the unit was into the setback. The Theisen's expressed their concern about not only the setback violation, but also the hcight of the building, which sits 16' higher than their house. Matt Theisen indicated that drainage could also be an issue in the area. The Theisen's explained that selling their house would now be much more ditlicult. They had also been told that the 4-plex would be a rental. Frie asked ifthey had attended the previous public hearings for the site. Matt Theisen responded that after viewing the concept plans, they were under the impression that the lot behind them was not buildable and did not attend. . Frie asked Schneider if the units were going to be rented, especially as that question had been asked when the application had been hcard by the Commission. Frie noted that at that time, Schneider had stated that they would not be rented. Schneider stated that they are built for sale as individual units, but there is no restriction that someone can't buy all of them and then rent. Frie clarified that although they didn't make a restriction, Commission may not have approved the CUP had they known thcy would be rental units. Schneider stated that hc can't restrict a buyer from purchasing them. Frie statcd that may be true, but the Commission can deny the application. Spartz asked about moving the units forward in terms of the front setback. Grittman stated they would violate the front setback if they slid the building forward. Debora Berthiaume, also an abutting property owner, expressed her concern about the setback violation. Frie asked if Berthiaume had attended the public hearings. Berthiaume stated that she too, understood that the lot was not buildable based on the original concept. Sandy Anderson addressed the Commission on behalf of Berthiaume, stating that Berthiaume is concerned about property values and the grade difference bctween the neighbor's homes and the 4~plex, which seems to be a significant issue. Frie explained that by law, the development can't drain onto her property and the engineering would have been reviewed in detail to ensure that. Hearing no further COlnment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Dragstcn asked the applicant's engineer for information. John Bender, MFRA, responded. Bender explained that he had only come on as project engineer earlier this year. Bender provided a synopsis of project, explaining that the original plans included a non-buildable area. Oncc . Nicholas Circle moved, the new plans included a development summary showing the building setback at 25 feet. The final preliminary plat submittal also showed those same dimensions. 'J - d - Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/04 . Frie confirmed that the preliminary plat as shown illustrates a 25-foot setback. Frie asked the engineers if they were aware that they were presenting a non-compliant plan. Bender stated that he had spoken with Ryan Bluhm, the first project engineer, and he was aware that a 25' setback lnay require a variance. I-Iowever, this was the plan that was approved, for whatever reason. Dragsten clarified thata rear setback was never grantcd through the CUP approval. O'Neill indicated that the rear setback was always a concern as the lots were very shallow. Staff reports always noted that setbacks had to be maintained. Posusta indicated that his eoneern isn't so much the 5' violation as the loss of privacy. hie stated they would first have to make a ruling on variance, thcn on how to mitigate the issues. Spartz asked if other buildings had been constructed in the plat. Schneider replied that only those on Prairie Road's north side have been completed. Spartz asked if the other proposed units meet the setbacks. Schneider stated that he is unsure. Bender stated that some others are at 30', however the south unit is set at a 25' setback. Frie stated that in granting the prcvious approval, the Commission had deemed that the applicant could put the property to reasonable use without a variance. Frie stated his opinion that the applicant has put the Commission into an unfortunate position. As such, hie recommended that the applicant considcr the following options: . 1. Buy neighbors' property. 2. Mitigate the setback violation through intensive landscaping 3. Modify rear building lines. Schncider stated that he concurred with the recommendations. Schneider noted that if not for the five foot violation, the developmcnt wouldn't be subject to anothcr review and thc general look of the 4-plex wouldn't be different from what exists. Frie asked the other Commissioners and neighbors tl1r input on the recommendation. Dragsten agreed with the recommendations, stating that even if the building is moved back, it won't solve the real problems for the neighbors. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE VARIANCE, BASED ON A FINDING THE APPLlCANT lIAS NOT DEMONSTRATED A HARDSHIP AS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THAT THE ENCROACHMENT WILL VIOLATE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL LISTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND THA T THE APPLlCANT CAN PUT THE PROPERTY TO REASONABLE USE WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACKS, AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS SUBMITTED FOR PLAT AND CUP APPROVAL. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. . frie recommended that staff, builder and engineer work together to resolve the issue. Frie encouraged the neighbors to be in attendance at City Council meeting when the appeal is heard on November 22"". -I - . . . Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/04 6. Public Hearing - Consideration ofa request for a Comnrehen~iy~ Plan Amendment tQ_J!UQ_\y_~ Rezone from a residential use to a lnixed use, Rezone fr9nLB--2 (Single and Two-Family R~~_iqt;!l.!i<ill to PZM (Performance Zone-Mj~t;.~!J,(m~t1! Conditional Use Permit to allow cOlnmercial retail activity in a PZM District. Applicant: Don Hickman Grittman reviewed the staff report, explaining that the subject property is sited in the midst of residential properties. The current use is an allowable non-conforming use as it had been grandfathered in. The same non-confonning use can continue, if the applicant chooses to sell or rent the property. However, Grittman stated that it is staff s op.in ion that in the event that Planning Commission were to consider a more intensive use, they would have to amend the comp plan. Grittman suggested another alternative, which would be to rezone the property to a B-1, or neighborhood commercial use. The zoning ordinance specifically allows for "spot-zoning" with the B- I designation. Grittman explained that small sites embedded within residential areas are ideal for the 13-1 designation as they are low-intensity commercial uses. Grittman reported that the applicant is seeking a PZM zoning designation with the comp plan amendment. Staff recommends 13-1, as it would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Frie asked if under the present zoning, the applicant can operate a service-type business or convet1 the property to residential and whether the applicant was receptive to either. Grittman stated that it was staWs understanding that the applicant was not looking for residential, and did not want to continue a service use. Grittman noted that there is PZM district one block west. Posusta stated that staff shou Id apply the 6-month sunset on grand fathered uses consistently, citing the Public Works facility as an example. Frie clarified that the applicant seems to have a variety of options. He stated that he sees the I Iickman's business as a positive addition to the community and doesn't see many problems with the current use, but perhaps residents see differently. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Don Hickman and Shawn Hickman addressed the Commission, stating that the property was never built as a residential use but was designed to be a service business. Hickman reported that they have four businesses interested in continuing a service use. However, each would need outside storage. I I ickman stated that they don't want outside storage, nor are they looking to put in a higher intensity use. They are looking at office products or other light retail, noting that a service business would put parking back on-street, where light retail would keep parking on-site. Don Ilickman reported that he has never heard a complaint from neighbors on vehicle traffic. Shawn Hickman stated that there may be more complaints with a service business than the retail. Frie clarified that the allowable uses are broken down within the ordinances and questioned whether what Hickman had discussed would work under a B-1 with a conditional use pcrmit. Grittlnan stated that he isn't sure that the type of retai I uses suggested would be allowed under B-1. Frie asked about PZM with CUP. Grittman agreed that a PZM designation would broaden the scope of permitted uses. Ilickman stated that he believed that limited office or service retail could be allowed under B-1. Hickman inquired whether a new CUP would be needed each time a different use was proposed. Grittman stated if it was the exact same use, they would not need to come back. However, a different use would require a new CUP to ensure that the nature of the use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. - ,) - Planning Commission Minutes 11/ I /04 . Dragsten asked ifthe Hickman's would continue to own the building and then lease it. Hickman stated that it would depend on the use. Ilickman asked about long-range zoning plans for the area. Gritttnan stated that the long-range land use plan illustrates the area as residential. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Dragsten clarified that the PZM zoning gives the applicant a lot more flexibility, but requires the comp plan change. The B-1 rezone would require them to come back for a CUP with each new use. Dragsten stated that the size of the building also seems to limit them if it was rezoned to PZM. Grittman noted that businesses could grow and so will activity. Frie agreed, stating that the building may limit growth but not the intensity of future uses. Dragsten asked if an office products store with only a small percentage of walk-in business would be permitted under the 13-1 district. Grittman stated that if"limited retail or office use" is permitted, the Commission would need to decide that issue. Spartz stated that B-1 zoning would provide some Ilexibility while balancing residential interests. . Posusta stated that he believes that the applicants should be able use their property as they see fit, especially as there have been no complaints about the business. Posusta recommended lnore flexibility, with limitations based on traffic generation. Posusta recommended the CUP in a PZM, which would still gives staff control of conditions. Frie asked Hickman what he could do under PZM versus B-1. Hickman clarified that although the PZM would open up more options, they would we still need to come back each time for a CUP. In that case, Frie asked if they were receptive to a B-1 district. Don I-lickman answered that they are receptive to anything that allowed light retail. Grittman corrected the definition of permitted uses in the B-1 district, noting the limited office and service retail was listed in the purpose statement for the district, but general retail is not allowed. The ordinance goes on to list specific permitted service retail uses such as convenience grocery. It does not seem that the B-1 district will allow him what he would like. Grittman stated that to allow what the applicant wants, Commission would have to go to PZM, which will require a comp plan amendment. Or, the Commission can amend the B-1 district. Dragsten stated that there are many similar uses to an office products store, many of which are more compatible than a neighborhood convenience store. Grittnmn asked Hickman when the office products store was looking to occupy the building. Ilickman said immediately. Frie asked for operation hours. Hickman replied that they are typically Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 5 :00 PM and no evenings or weekends. Hearing no further comlnent, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. . Grittman indicated that the B-1 district could be a1nended to accommodate their use and the Commission could issue a CUP under this clause. The Commission could proceed with the amendment at future date. - Ii - . . , Planning Commission Minutcs 11/1/04 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF A CUP UNDER AN AMENDED B-1 ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWING LIMITED RETAIL COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THIS USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE INTENT OF THE 13-1 NElGIIBORIIOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND SUBJECT TO TilE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: a. Operating hours are limited to 8 AM -6 PM, Monday through Friday. b. Lowering the intensity of lighting for the existing building. c. Conformance to the sign ordinance regulations for the B-1 District. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Preliminary and Final Plat for Otter Creek Crossing, a proposed commercial and industrial subdivision. Applicant: Otter Creek, LLC Grittman outlined the staffrepolt, explaining that the applicants will be developing the property shown on the proposed plat between Chelsea and 1-94 and the majority ofthe remainder of the plat will be developed by the City. Grittman stated that the applicants will be developing Lot 1, Block I first. As such, the have provided complete preliminary plat detail for that parcel. A CUP for the proposed use will be needed at the time the lot develops. The items detailed in the report for Lot 1, Block 1 are noticcs for the future development and are not conditions of this approval. Grittman concluded that the preliminary plat appears to meet all the needed requirements, subject to future preliminary and final platting of the outlots. Grittman noted that the plans have been subject to quite a bit of staff review. Frie asked if the preliminary plat is being approved to allow them to sell portions and ifthat is a common practice. Grittman stated that it is, and that it is allowable, provided that greater detail is presented at the time of development. In this case, at the time of development, the outlots will need to be preliminary platted. Dragsten asked if the outlots arc divided up by uses following the comprehensive plan. Grittman stated that divisions are due to the phasing of the sale agreements, as purchases will be by outlot. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Ollie Koropchak, Economic Development Director, addressed the Commission. Koropchak stated that the plat presented represents work between the Small Industrial Group and the City, who had been working with the seller on the process of preliminary and final plat. All parties are anxious to have it move forward in order to complete land sale transactions. Koropchak also noted that the City Engineer had requested an additional condition that the applicant provide an easement through Outlot F so that the City maintains access to its parcel. That easement should be a condition of approval. Koropchak stated that the City Attorney had indicated that the Seller had agreed to a blanket casement allowing for that access. Koropchak indicated that the Planning Commission may want to note that in their motion. - 7 - ~.,-~ "~' .-,'.'-. .-- ...- -,,~.,,-,- .-. - ... Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/04 Frie asked planning staff for clarification on the access. Grittman noted that there may be a road extension needed through Outlot F to the City parcel. If the road access is determined not to be needed, the City would abandon that easement. However, Grittman agreed that it would be important to preserve that option. Paul Zisal, attorney for the applicant, addressed the easement. Zisal indicated that they had agreed to allow a temporary easement, commenting that the City doesn't need a blanket easement. Zisal stated that the applicant recognizes that the City may need to cross that area, but they cannot provide a blanket easement. Koropchak replied that she was not aware that the applicants had offered the temporary easement and explained that the basic purpose is to reserve the right to the easement for road at the time it will be needed. If the temporary easement serves that purpose, it is acceptable. Zisal stated that the problem with a blanket easement would be that a large chunk of the property would be encumbered. Zisal noted that there are unresolved questions on where a road would be, the width, etc. Zisal acknowledged the need to allow access and suggested a separate agreement. Bilotta added that other agreements in progress will help resolve those issues. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN— TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OTTER CREEK CROSSINGS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE LAND USE PATTERN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS; AS FUTURE USES BECOME MORE APPARENT, THE OUTLOTS WILL NEED TO BE REPLATTED. A CUP, INCLUDING IN -DEPTH SITE PLAN, BUILDING PLANS, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS, A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN, SIGNAGE PLAN, AND LANDSCAPE PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR LOT 1 BLOCK 1. Frie asked the applicant if they would be amenable to producing a site plat showing the easement. Zisal stated that it would still be dedication, which they do not prefer. They are willing to state that they will provide a temporary easement. Frie wants it on the record through the motion that the easement will be there should the City need it and asked the application how they would suggest it stated. Bilotta stated that they are agreeable to that condition as recommended by Frie. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANTS PROVIDE AN EASEMENT, IF NEEDED BY THE CITY, THROUGH OUTLOT F. MOTION CARRIED. Consideration to call for a Public Hearing for Rezone of a 120 acre parcel of Otter Creek Cros� MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING OF A 120 -ACRE PARCEL OF OTTER CREEK CROSSING AT THE DECEMBER 7TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. -8- . . . Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/04 9. Public Hearing - Considcration,gf an alllendnlent to the 1\19!!!!12e1Io Zoning Ordinan~e allowing Open and Outdoor Storaf;e. Applicant City of MontieellQJ!hUlning Commission Grittman presented the staff report, stating that there had been prcvious discussion on thc whether the ordinancc properly defined and regulated outdoor storage. The subject had also becn discussed in tcrms of zoning and covenants for the proposed Otter Creek industrial campus. As sueh, Grittman rcported that plann ing staff had provided a series of altcrnatives with in the staff report. The report also addresses items within thc current ordinance that necd clarification. Grittman explained that the way thc ordinance is currently structured, it doesn't diffcrentiate between the three industrial zoning designations. Grittman indicated that it would seem logical to be more restrictivc in the II-A district and Icss so as the industrial uses intcnsify. Grittlnan stated that the draft language determines the amount of storage based on square footage of the use or of the parcel. Grittman noted that somc communities are restricting open and outdoor storage in all districts, with thc justification that outdoor storage in itself doesn't crcate either taxbase or employment. Grittman indicatcd that at this time, planning staff is presenting the examples as a basis for formulating a structure, which can thcn be put into a formal ordinance proposal. Frie asked if amcnding the ordinance will provide the City with the mechanism to reduce blight. Griuman stated that the reality is that the current blight is existing non-confl1fmance. It would probably not give the Commission any additional leverage. O'Neill conHnentcd that the amcndment would help bettcr determine what COlllmission finds acceptable. O'Neill cited screening limitations and landscaping requirements as examplcs. Frie askcd if this amendment pertained to open and outdoor storage only in industrial areas. Griuman responded that is the way the drafted examples had been phrased. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Curt Christopherson of Pipeline Supply addressed the Commission. Christophcrson indicatcd that Pipeline Supply is one of the businesscs considered to have blighted outdoor storage, although he stated that he does consider their product blight. Christopherson eXplained that having available oustide storage is becoming a problem for wholesalers. They are finding limited access because communities want evcrything under a roof. Christophcrson stated that putting all their materials under a roof isn't cost effective for thcir type of industry. He also questioned the elllployce and tax base statcmcnt, citing his elnployee count, which has grown over thc years. Christopherson also noted that they had tried to buy additional land to further their yard and extend storage. J-Ie eommented that if a building had been located on the adjacent parcel, it would screen the existing storagc. Christopherson indicated that if Pipeline Supply were to lose outsidc storage or be restricted, they couldn't locate in Monticello. Frie asked Christopherson if the outside storage is in the rear of the propclty. Christopherson repl ied that it was. Frie indicated that Commission could add ordinance requirements for screening and standards for rear yard storagc which would allow them some control, but still provide opportunities for storage. Frie asked Christopherson if he was agreeablc to such measures. - ~ ) - Planning Commission Minutes 11/1/04 . Christopherson noted that no matter what, there may still be issues unless the Commission was reasonable with setting restrietions. F rie expressed his op inion that there has to be some type of restriction on outdoor storage and that there should be a point of compromise. Frie stated that he would like to work with business owners on what is fair. Stve Bonham, Integrated Recycling, addressed the Commission. Bonham stated that the company, which buys materials to be recyeled, has experienced growth in last few years. He eXplained that during day the material is outside, at night it is brought inside. They are willing to work with City to create a clean industrial area. Frie expressed appreeiation to Christopherson and Ronham fl1f their input and asked them to be available as the Commission moves forward on this issue. . .Jay Morell, owner of property in one of Monticello's 1-2 zoning areas, spoke to the Commission. He requested cooperation in working with the industrial park on outdoor storage, particularly in setbaeks and landscaping requirements. He expressed his opinion that storing product is no different than car dealerships displaying their vehicles. In that case, auto dealerships have product right up to property line. Morrell requested that Commission give industrial properties the same options. Morrell stated that he is not opposed to landscaping. Morrell also complimented the Commission on the reeent Wallboard decision as they needed the additional outdoor storage in order to locate in Monticello. Morrell indicated that he did not agree with tax base comment in the staff report. Griuman clarified that comment had been based on broadening tax base and employment. Morrell cited a number of examples of other commun ities which allowed outdoor storage and asked the Commission for reason and logic in developing its recommendations. Frie noted the recommendations included trade-offs between more storage and additional screening and landscaping. Morrell responded that the recommended additional setback requirements could force business to buy additional land, and theref()fe prices them out ofthe land. Koropchak addressed the Commission, stating that she is present to listen and gather information on behalf of the !DC, who will then be able to provide input on the issue as well. Frie asked if the !DC will provide a recommendation. Koropehak and Gerittman stated that they would. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the pubic hearing. Frie asked if adjustments to the ordinance had been made to accommodate Wallboard's request and does Councilor Commission have the authority under the current ordinance to allow such adjustments. O'Neill stated that Wallboard's storage needs were accommodated under the existing code. lIE explained that staff is seeking clarification by addressing the issue as a whole. Posusta asked the Commission to consider what would be 1110re attractive, the blight or the recommendcd scrcening wall? He commented that the job of industry is not to be appealing, but to provide jobs and services. . O'Neill agreed, noting that the purpose of amending the ordinance is to provide better definition. O'Neill also noted the City's support of industry, citing the purchase of industrial areas in order to - 10- . . . Planning Commission Minutes 111 I 104 create more industrial land. The goal is to set a threshold in order to balance the amount of business and jobs created in contract to storage. Posusta read report passages that concerned him and explained that he has reservations about the amount of regulation. Frie stated that the real issue seems to be the concern about outdoor versus indoor storage. Frie agreed that fair restrictions are needed. However, it is his opinion that an open-ended approach to outdoor storage isn't fair. Frie stated that buffering and screening may be the solution. Morrell questioned the I imitations on the amount of outdoor storage identified in the staff report. Frie stated that the Planning Commission is not out to eliminate outdoor storage, however, there needs to be guidelines. O'Neill stated that no motion needs to be taken at this point, staff is just looking for input. Posusta stated that it seems that staff is trying to create language versus just gather input, referencing the staff report recommendations. O'Neill stated that the examples were put forward to generate discussion. Frie thanked those present for their input and indicated that the item would come back for additional discussion in December. 10. Update: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Development O'Neill stated that the Council will be reviewing the visioning and long-range planning process. He noted that the common theme will be long-range land-use planning for annexation areas. O'Neill explained that the method or format is up in the air pending the election. O'Neill indicated that staff had met with representatives for Heritage Development. The company is looking at a large master-planned development in the northwest corridor of the community. Staff and developer had received valuable feedback from a City Council workshop regarding the development. Frie asked if the planning process will stay on schedule after the election. O'Neill responded that they would try to follow the format, noting that there could be questions on budgeting. There may be a need to update the process and prioritize. 11. ^diourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN AT 9:00. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRM3STEN. MOTION CARRIED. / - - I J -